A Case Series Review of Spinal Cord Stimulation Migration Rates With a Novel Fixation Device

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Justiz ◽  
Ishmael Bentley
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Fixation Device ◽  
Migration Rates

scholarly journals Successful application of burst spinal cord stimulation for refractory upper limb pain: a case series

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 030006052110040
Author(s):  
Kuen Su Lee ◽  
Yoo Kyung Jang ◽  
Gene Hyun Park ◽  
In Jae Jun ◽  
Jae Chul Koh
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
Therapeutic Potential ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Limb Amputation ◽  
Intractable Pain ◽  
Limb Pain ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Upper Limb Pain

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used to treat sustained pain that is intractable despite various types of treatment. However, conventional tonic waveform SCS has not shown promising outcomes for spinal cord injury (SCI) or postamputation pain. The pain signal mechanisms of burst waveforms are different to those of conventional tonic waveforms, but few reports have presented the therapeutic potential of burst waveforms for the abovementioned indications. This current case report describes two patients with refractory upper limb pain after SCI and upper limb amputation that were treated with burst waveform SCS. While the patients could not obtain sufficient therapeutic effect with conventional tonic waveforms, the burst waveforms provided better pain reduction with less discomfort. However, further studies are necessary to better clarify the mechanisms and efficacy of burst waveform SCS in patients with intractable pain.

A Retrospective Case Series of High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation (HF10-SCS) in Neurogenic Bladder Incontinence

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Schieferdecker ◽  
Clemens Neudorfer ◽  
Faycal El Majdoub ◽  
Mohammad Maarouf
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Neurogenic Bladder ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Retrospective Case Series

scholarly journals Comparison of FDA-Approved Electrical Neuromodulation Techniques for Focal Neuropathic Pain: A Narrative Review of DRG, HF10, and Burst Neuromodulation

2021 ◽  
pp. E407-E423
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Dorsal Root Ganglion ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Dorsal Root ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Dorsal Column ◽  
Small Sample

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) is a more effective treatment for focal neuropathic pain (FNP) compared with tonic, paresthesia-based dorsal column spinal cord stimulation (SCS). However, new advancements in waveforms for dorsal column SCS have not been thoroughly studied or compared with DRGS for the treatment of FNP. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review was to examine the evidence for these novel technologies; to highlight the lack of high-quality evidence for the use of neuromodulation to treat FNP syndromes other than complex regional pain syndrome I or II of the lower extremity; to emphasize the absence of comparison studies between DRGS, burst SCS, and high-frequency SCS; and to underscore that consideration of all neuromodulation systems is more patient-centric than a one-size-fits-all approach. STUDY DESIGN: This is a review article summarizing case reports, case series, retrospective studies, prospective studies, and review articles. SETTING: The University of Miami, Florida. METHODS: A literature search was conducted from February to March 2020 using the PubMed and EMBASE databases and keywords related to DRGS, burst SCS, HF10 (high-frequency of 10 kHz), and FNP syndromes. All English-based literature from 2010 reporting clinical data in human patients were included. RESULTS: Data for the treatment of FNP using burst SCS and HF10 SCS are limited (n = 11 for burst SCS and n = 11 for HF10 SCS). The majority of these studies were small, single-center, nonrandomized, noncontrolled, retrospective case series and case reports with short follow-up duration. To date, there are only 2 randomized controlled trials for burst and HF10 for the treatment of FNP. LIMITATIONS: No studies were available comparing DRGS to HF10 or burst for the treatment of FNP. Data for the treatment of FNP using HF10 and burst stimulation were limited to a small sample size reported in mostly case reports and case series. CONCLUSIONS: FNP is a complex disease, and familiarity with all available systems allows the greatest chance of success. KEY WORDS: Dorsal root ganglion, high frequency, burst, spinal cord stimulation, neuromodulation, focal neuropathic pain

scholarly journals Sensor driven-position adaptive versus conventional spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome: a retrospective case series

2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mert Akbas ◽  
Haitham Hamdy Salem ◽  
Tamer Hussien Emara ◽  
Bora Dinc ◽  
Bilge Karsli
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Failed Back Surgery Syndrome ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Failed Back Surgery ◽  
Back Surgery ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Abstract Background Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a common problem affecting 20–40% of cases undergoing spine surgeries. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to be an efficient and relatively safe treatment in managing many intractable chronic pain syndromes. Objectives This study compares the efficacy and safety of MR-compatible sensor driven-position adaptive SCS and conventional SCS in treating FBSS. Methods This is a retrospective case series of 120 consecutive FBSS patients who underwent SCS between February 2011 and March 2018. Pain levels, analgesic/opioid use, and sleep problems were assessed before and 3 months after the procedure in patients who received either conventional SCS (group 1; n = 62) or sensor-driven position adaptive SCS (group 2; n = 34). The degree of patient satisfaction, the change in the activities of daily living (ADLs) together with the rate of complications were compared in both treatment groups. Results The two treatment groups were homogenous at baseline. Patients in both groups improved significantly regarding pain, opioid consumption, sleep, and ADLs. The magnitude of improvement was statistically higher in group 2. An absolute reduction of 6 points on the VAS in patients who received position adaptive SCS vs a 3.3 point reduction in conventional SCS cases (p < 0.0001). Half of the patients in group 2 (n = 17) showed excellent satisfaction after the procedure versus 14.5% of cases in group 1 (n = 9). Conclusion SCS is an efficient and reliable treatment in FBSS. MR-compatible sensor driven-position adaptive SCS can be a more effective treatment in this patient group.

scholarly journals Neuromodulation of the Cervical Spinal Cord in the Treatment of Chronic Intractable Neck and Upper Extremity Pain: A Case Series and Review of the Literature

2007 ◽  
Vol 2;10 (3;2) ◽  
pp. 305-311
Author(s):  
Ricardo Vallejo
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
Cervical Spinal Cord ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Limb Pain ◽  
Fusion Surgery ◽  
Upper Limb Pain ◽  
Pain Patients

Electrical spinal neuromodulation in the form of spinal cord stimulation is currently used for treating chronic painful conditions such as complex regional pain syndrome, diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, peripheral ischemia, low back pain, and other conditions refractory to more conservative treatments. To date, there are very few published reports documenting the use of spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of head/neck and upper limb pain. This paper reports a case series of 5 consecutive patients outlining the use of spinal cord stimulation to treat upper extremity pain. All subjects had previously undergone cervical fusion surgery to treat chronic neck and upper limb pain. Patients were referred following failure of the surgery to manage their painful conditions. Spinal cord stimulators were placed in the cervical epidural space through a thoracic needle placement. Stimulation parameters were adjusted to capture as much of the painful area(s) as possible. In total, 4 out of 5 patients moved to implantation. In all cases, patients reported significant (70–90%) reductions in pain, including axial neck pain and upper extremity pain. Interestingly, 2 patients with associated headache and lower extremity pain obtained relief after paresthesia-steering reportedly covered those areas. Moreover, 2 patients reported that cervical spinal cord stimulation significantly improved axial low back pain. Patients continue to report excellent pain relief up to 9 months following implantation. This case series documents the successful treatment of neck and upper extremity pain following unsuccessful cervical spine fusion surgery. Given this initial success, prospective, controlled studies are warranted to more adequately assess the long term utility and cost effectiveness of electrical neuromodulation treatment of chronic neck and upper extremity pain. Key words: spinal cord stimulator, cervical, neck pain, radicular pain, axial pain, headache, leg pain

scholarly journals Stim Salvage: Case Series Reporting on the Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation Salvage

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Paullus ◽  
Erika A Petersen
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Low Frequency Stimulation ◽  
Trial Outcomes ◽  
Frequency Stimulation ◽  
New System

Abstract INTRODUCTION Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been successfully used to treat chronic pain with improved levels of pain, decreased use of narcotic medications, and increased level of function. Nevertheless, for patients SCS benefit wares over time and maximal reprogramming may not achieve improvement. However, advancing technologies, such as burst and high-frequency modulation, offer stimulation which differs from the traditional low-frequency stimulation. For those with SCS already placed, these new technologies offer a possible avenue with which to salvage SCS loss of efficacy. In patients with the an ineffective system, a salvage trial with a new system can be performed. In these cases, their current generators are externalized and then, utilizing their current epidural array, the leads are connected to a new trial system. These patients return to the OR in about 1 wk time for either permanent implantation or removal of the remainder of their old system. The results of these salvage trials are presented. METHODS We reviewed serially treated patients with previously placed SCS who were taken to the operating room for a salvage trial. All patient had their SCS leads externalized and connected to a different system. Changes in VAS, functional status, the trial outcomes led to permanent placement were collected retrospectively. RESULTS Results of 15 patient who underwent SCS externalization trial between 2016 and 2019 are summarized. Trial failure rate, salvage SCS response rate, changes in VAS, and patient satisfaction with the new system are reviewed. Successful salvage was accomplished in 93%. CONCLUSION New stimulation paradigms such as burst and high frequency offer a new avenue of effective treatment for those with an ineffective SCS systems. When a patient's device is unable to deliver these paradigms, an IPG-externalization trial may be a low risk option for salvaging therapy.

Patient Outcomes and Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Retrospective Case Series Evaluating Patient Satisfaction, Pain Scores, and Opioid Requirements

Pain Practice ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. 899-904 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca A. Sanders ◽  
Susan M. Moeschler ◽  
Halena M. Gazelka ◽  
Tim J. Lamer ◽  
Zhen Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Retrospective Case Series
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document